Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-19
C0URT OF APPEALS.
STHapSes Of Decisions Rendered at the
Present TyisT sitting or the higher
Courts ST TsXas.
Court OF Appeals neutrality-suspicious. .
Rendered ~ soulr Long Con-
EcEfed gas =.

reaearIng. TIE motion for reheaging is
Gskad TO b. dismissed On :6e ground that
the appellant is not now nor lis been
since tbe egiaI Of this cause, On the 12.h
day M. 1887, IA ile CUSTODY Of am
oGioer, y q s-y manner restrained Of his
liberty on sec. INT Of me charge against
MIN leading to the sueing out Of the writ
of a35sas CORPUS her in. Also, because
the pro- ctutiDD in Which The writ Of
h25eAs corpus 'y>z spzd out has been dis.
missed. Held: M0ion well taken and
fhe 70 ,tioa for rehearing dismissed.
Wilson, J.
Allen Carroll vs.. the S.gto; appeal
from Caldwell. Where original papers
are ordered TO be sent up with the tran
script they should be forwarded with the
transcript and their identity verified By
proper certificate OF the clerk,
aud separately from the tran
script. Where original papers are
sent up rs part of the record, and not
properly certified 10 by the clerk, we are
not authorized 10 consider them as a part
Of the record. No statement OF facts
nor bill Ct exceptions in the record and
20 reveralble error. Affirmed. Wilson, J. .
Antonio Carols W. the State; appesl
from Wilson. [. was not error for the
court 30 refuse TO grant new trial
On the ground OF newly discovered
evidence and because the same was
merely 10 contradict the testimony of q
states witness, aud no diligence to soon
or discover it is shown. Though the eyi-
derce IVES somewhat corfctiag. there is
ample pr0HftO sustain tine convection. No
error. AHMED. Wilson, j.
Texas Oil Company vs. J. J. Mistrot;
sppeSi from Navarro. This case Wss tried
ia the County court Of Navarro county 8:
1Ee n Vemoer term. 1885, and within
twenty days sitter Adjournment appellant
Med supersede8s b nd to remove the
csuse to lhis court, Wnich bond was ap-
proved. Il is shown that neither the ap.
pellsnt company nor its attorneys have
ever applied fer transcript Of the BRO
ceedings il ire court below. notions
made show ne above facts, 20 affirm on
cerudcate, and the motion is granted !
Affirmed OF certificate. Wilson, J.
Henry jackson vs.. the S.GSs; appeal |
from Hunt The Indictment was good fer !
assault ID murder and the jury we're JUS
sized in bringing in q verdict Of aggra-
waited assault under the same. There i |
no statement of facts, nor are there a1y |
court below. No error apparent from the |
record Am med. Wilson, j.
Mi Ellison vs.. the State; appeal from
Caldwell. ia this case the record fails
70 show shat any notice OF sppesl Was
given in Ire court below. The Assistant
Attorney General moves TO dismiss on
that ground. Held: The point is veil
tsEea and the motion is sustained. Dis
missed. Wilson, J.
James Hendrix ys. the State; appeal
from Mason. This case was dismissed
81 the Austin term of this court because
the record failed to show that SLY notice
G. appeal had bsen gwen il the court be
!2W. Upon the sending down Of the msn-
G1te the appellant was conveyed TO the
penlfentiary where he is now serving GU
his sentence. At the October term OF
court appellants attorneys made q mo
ton 10 enter nunc pro tune, q motion Of
appeal, the same being based upon the ,
ground that that upon his motion for re- ,
q 9arlng being Overruled he gave notice of
appeal, but that the clerk failed TO enter
such notice upon the motion docket Of
Inc court. The Assistant AtJorney-Gen- {
raj moves to dismiss on the !
grounds, among others, that the court be- :
oW had no Authority to enter notice of :
.ppea! uunc pro tune at succeeding I
term OF the court sitter conviction of ap- g
leilant; that appellant csn not st G sub
sequent term tske advantage # his {
own neglect to C0nsummate what was o
OrigiEslly lawful, but became unlawful I
,nd illegal by his own act. Held: The
grounds OK the motion are well taken and {
he same is sustained. Dismissed Will c
'on, j. 8
Texas Trutk Railway Company vs.. II. s
4. Shelton; appeal from 2ufmau. There C
being no statement Of facts filed IN iris T
;Our[, appellee moves TO affirm on GER 8
iicate. Motion granted. Affirmed or t
Wilson, j. I
Il Renning vs.. The State; appeal from g
rsrrsnJ county. An application Tor r
hauge OF venue alleging the existence Of
lch prejudice against the defendant t
IS would prevent him from having a r
air and impartial trial in Tsrrant county,
by the affidavit Of three COM &
,urgstirg witnesses was fled in the case. t
70 coAtrOvert this the stste presented an
fidsvit sworn to by thirteen citizens {
attacking the means of knowledge of C
ne cOmpurgators Epd denying the exist. b
nee of such prejudice. 1t is made TO I
ppes- by bill OF exceptions that after S
ECn Vi tuc JdI66 COHpul SdtOIs uau Oten =
touching their means of knoWl {
,dge and the existence Of prejudice, the I
tate called enc Tucker AID asked him ''if {
here was sufficient prejudice in Tarrant 9
county to prevent fair trial" To this U
question the defendant objected upon i
he ground thst the existence Of e
prejudice was rot in issue.
Held: The objection was properly +
verruled. This evidence is admissible {
s beng upon the means of knowledge of Il
ne compurgstors. The error in over d
uling the application for continuance, If
rror there was, became harmless, since
he desired testimony was shown to be
ither MINISTERIAL or probably untrue Il
The assignment Of error with regard to n
he ruling that Chambers was q competent =
uror WAS not well taken. The bill of ex- =
options taken to the ruling does not -
how he either sat in the case or thst he "
76s peremptorily challenged by the de- :,
endant, and that sn Objectionable Juror -
Ias forced upon him after his challenges .
rere exhausted. If the states testimony o
Tas true the homicide resulting :,
7as murder of the first degree:
ae defendants, il true, showed